Elsewhere (256)
Heather Mac Donald on a certain newspaper of record:
The day after the New York Times informed its readers about the “professional” world of astrology, it ran a front-page story about ICE agents’ alleged reign of terror in Atlanta, Ga., under the Trump administration. This reign of terror consists in targeted enforcement raids against individuals like an illegal Mexican who has been deported twice, served time in prison, convicted of two domestic-violence incidents, and charged with rape which he plea-bargained down to a lesser crime. The number of illegal alien law-breakers in Atlanta is so high that one is booked into a county jail every few hours, reports the Times. The Times notes with dismay that illegal aliens are being arrested for driving without insurance and without a licence. Apparently Times reporters would not mind if their car were totalled by an uninsured driver. A reporter for the Spanish-language newspaper Mundo Hispanico sends out Facebook alerts of sightings of ICE agents so that illegal aliens can evade the law. Yet we are supposed to believe that it is the Trump administration that poses a threat to the rule of law.
Apparently, readers of the New York Times are expected to concern themselves with the violation of their borders by illegal aliens only insofar as illegal alien status is to be construed as excusing other criminal activity.
Peter Wood on perverse art and its admirers:
Take the elevator to the sixth-floor offices of the college president, however, and… you will find… a celebratory exhibit of art created by the friends and allies of the 9-11 terrorists… The paintings and the models in the show are unremarkable as art. They display no special skill or aesthetic sensibility. That has not stopped Erin Thompson and her two fellow curators from attempting to squeeze whatever portentous meaning they can from the paintings. For example, in reference to a painting of a glass vase, a bottle, and two cups, by Ahmed Rabbani (a member of Al Qaida who trained as a terrorist in Afghanistan), the curators observe in the exhibition notes, that the “empty vessels also serve as an oblique reference both to Rabbani’s absent family and to his acts of self-denial and resistance.” What you won’t find in these paintings is any trace of repentance. These artworks are by terrorists and their accomplices who seem untouched by the monstrousness of their actions. They can wax sentimental about their own families and can draft images of hearts and flowers, but pity for the victims of their jihad is beyond their imagination — at least their visual imagination.
Curiously, or perhaps not curiously at all, the reasons for detention are downplayed or entirely absent. Nor is there any mention of released detainees’ recidivism rates. And despite the claims of artistic and sociological heft, there is, as Peter Wood notes, a baser motive in play – the wearying, juvenile need to be seen as transgressing bourgeois proprieties: “What better way to rile people than to celebrate terrorist art at a college that educates students for careers in law enforcement?” In New York City, no less.
Somewhat related, this video here, in which students share their views of the exhibit, and of course this somewhat revealing faculty profile.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
Q&A here in Australia had one audience member in tears over the Donald and offshore detention centres.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/qanda-eric-abetz-and-lisa-singh-go-head-to-head-over-manus-island-crisis/ar-BBGcyCy?li=AAavLaF&ocid=ientp
Somewhat related, this video here, in which students share their views of the exhibit,
It’s the John Jay brains trust.
It’s the John Jay brains trust.
And then there’s the bit, about 2 minutes in, where the unnamed faculty member says, rather airily, “The whole point of John Jay is inclusion…” and has to be reminded that, actually, the point of the place where she works is, supposedly, criminal justice.
I suppose one could take the exhibition as a reminder of what really animates our artistic Brahmins, and how peripheral, if present at all, artistic content actually is. I mean, this colossal work, by Muhammad al-Ansi, a would-be suicide bomber who served on bin Laden’s security detail, is particularly deep and steeped in aesthetics.
No?
The NYT has also recently run laudatory articles on North Korea and the sex-lives of women under communism. Quite bizarre.
Somewhat related, this video here, in which students share their views of the exhibit,
I wonder if John Jay College would show artworks created by, say, Dylann Roof? If not, why not?
The NYT has also recently run laudatory articles on North Korea and the sex-lives of women under communism. Quite bizarre.
The nakedness of the posturing is itself quite telling, the matter-of-fact assumption of non-reciprocal standards – for instance, the conceit that one shouldn’t object to illegal aliens driving about, illegally, without insurance or a license. Presumably on the basis that the New York Times reporter, Vivian Yee, assumes she’ll never be the one suffering the consequences of someone else’s reckless and repeated criminal behaviour.
It’s up there with ‘Why would anyone fuss about a bit of harmless burglary?’ As seen in the Guardian.
Or, ‘Why make a fuss about masked thugs rioting, smashing windows and setting other people’s property on fire?’ As seen, for instance, here.
I wonder if John Jay College would show artworks created by, say, Dylann Roof? If not, why not?
There’s also the implication that, because the thousands of people who lost loved ones during the atrocities aren’t a Designated Victim Group, as defined by the left, any insult or anger they feel as a result of the exhibit can be waved aside as immaterial, and presumably unsophisticated. If the victims of a massive terrorist atrocity were a definable victim group, as defined by people who like to define these things, I suspect the controversy would be handled rather differently.
That has not stopped Erin Thompson and her two fellow curators…
– I tell ya, these Thompsons… 😉
Deplorable lot, aren’t they? 😉
Deplorable lot, aren’t they?
‘Deplorable’ Thompson? Has a certain ring….
.. people who lost loved ones during the atrocities aren’t a Designated Victim Group,
There also seems an unspoken assumption that the perpetrators of said atrocities are considered members of a Designated Victim Group, and therefore worthy of empathy.
…the wearying, juvenile need to be seen as transgressing bourgeois proprieties…
Of course, we’re approaching–if we haven’t already reached–the point where such transgression no longer has the capacity to shock the bourgeoisie. “Transgressing bourgeois proprieties” has become quite middle-brow.
From the NYT article:
Earth to journalist – THIS IS NOT A BAD THING.
I don’t understand some on the left’s approval of ISIS. I mean although monstorous, I can understand the admiration of Che Guevera, Stalin, or Mao. After all, they have some common values. (Abolition of property, elimination of class differences, etc.) But, with ISIS it is different. ISIS treats women abysmally which you think would rile the left, and also shows no reciprocity with the lefts goals. It would appear to be no more than the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Earth to journalist – THIS IS NOT A BAD THING.
The NYT article does, I think, offer some insight into a bizarre worldview and the dishonesties required to sustain it. The piece repeatedly conflates immigrants in general with illegal aliens, as if no meaningful distinction were to be made, and the tacit assumption throughout is that large numbers of people violating your country’s borders, daily, is something the public shouldn’t care about. There’s also the strange conceit that US citizens are only supposed to care about the lawbreaker’s illegal alien status when it can be invoked as some decisively mitigating factor, an all-purpose excuse; as opposed to, say, an aggravating factor, another criminal act to add to the others.
What I think most people outside this little ecosystem of sanity that Mr. Thompson so kindly provides for us, is that the term “postmodernism” isn’t an area of academic study of anything at all. When writing something, or describing something, or creating “postmodernist art, the postmodernist isn’t demonstrating mastery of a subject or producing anything. Rather, the postmodernist is demonstrating his power to subjugate the reader/viewer/listener to his will: “I, the postmodernist, have the power to force you to pay deference and respect to something that you know is utter crap. I can force you to act in a way that is directly counter to your self-respect, your dignity, your culture, your religion, and indeed, your very freedom of thought. And there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Therefore, the further from reality postmodernism is, the more effective it is at demonstrating that power. Understood properly, what these academics are doing is demonstrating their power to force the university to act against its interest as a university. The only proper reaction to these postmodernists is to dispatch them with prejudice. Fire them from the faculty, remove the cancer from the institution and never let it return.
…the wearying, juvenile need to be seen as transgressing bourgeois proprieties…
Actually, I quite agree with that. I hereby nominate “tenure” as the bourgeois value that could use some serious transgressing at this university. Fire these jackals. Force them to obey their own values, for once.
…the postmodernist isn’t demonstrating mastery of a subject or producing anything. Rather, the postmodernist is demonstrating his power to subjugate the reader/viewer/listener to his will…
The first 15-20 minutes of this discussion between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia is instructive, especially Paglia’s discussion of postmodernism and art.
“Deplorable Thompson.” Sounds like the name of a Billy Corgan side project.
“Deplorable Thompson.”
Or Knuckles Thompson, as I was known in the big house.
I can force you to act in a way that is directly counter to your self-respect, your dignity, your culture, your religion, and indeed, your very freedom of thought. And there’s nothing you can do about it.
I think the reason Theodore Dalrymple’s interview on political correctness gets forgotten because people think it’s only about Communism.
what these academics are doing is demonstrating their power to force the university to act against its interest as a university.
Iowahawk again.
We’ve known what the problem is since Bezmenov and what the solution is since Pinochet.
“Deplorable Thompson”
Did you live just up the road from the Yokum family and Moonbeam McSwine?
Hi Steve,
Re your Isis question, to the left “woman” means “rich or upper-middle-class feminist.” This is also why they are silent on female circumcision—to what passes for their minds, it doesn’t affect women.
Also, I think David should change the name of the bar to Chez Deplorable.
Modern-day news consumption.
…and also shows no reciprocity with the lefts goals.
Stated. The left’s stated goals.
21st-century nuttiness reaches a new, er, bottom
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5144101/Anal-bleaching-23-pressure-porn-star-look.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
I thought at my age I’d heard it all. Silly me.
Modern-day news consumption.
Seen these arguments around for a while. Panic about how to pay for them. The base problem is there are way to many news sites that have traditionally ridden on local monopolies (in the US at least). A shake out needs to occur. I’m just a dumb engineer, but it seems to me if you could provide quality journalism…you know, no lying, do thorough fact checking, sources openly acknowledged for their varying degrees of reliability…you could attract a large enough volume of eyeballs to your site such that a few CocaCola or Mercedes or Amazon adverts could support it. Of course, being a dumb engineer, I ain’t run the math on that. But if news sites are losing money anyway, perhaps someone should try it? Just a suggestion…
“I think the reason Theodore Dalrymple’s interview on political correctness gets forgotten because people think it’s only about Communism.”
I don’t think people appreciate just how much Communism is still a threat. Whether or not Golitsyn’s “long-term strategy” is real or not, it’s certainly true that the fall of the USSR has had precisely the effect that he claimed it was intended to. Since people in the west no longer think of Communism in terms of the Soviet military threat, they’re more tolerant of its ideas.
All these things – “political correctness”, post-modernism, green-ism, etc. – are about Communism, even if many of their loudest advocates don’t realise it (that’s the beauty of it, from the overt Marxists’ point of view; they have more “useful idiots” this way than the Soviets ever dreamed of). It’s just that the danger no longer comes from Moscow, but from within.
I don’t think people appreciate just how much Communism is still a threat.
Agreed. I knew a lot of radical leftists and outright communists in and around academia in the 70’s, and none of them have ceased to be infatuated with totalitarian socialism. If anything, they are more vociferous in their advocacy and more openly intolerant of those who prefer freedom.
Some of us laugh at the antics of “leftist” and SJW’s, some shake their heads.
But I’m a bit concerned about it, what will it be like working with them? Taking orders from them? having them in political office? What will their generation of children be like?
The other day I was in Starbucks and an older gentlemen was taking my order, when he slid the glass door to the pastries open it knocked a small display tray over.
No big deal easily fixed, but the young woman working with him stated at the top of her voice “so and so knocked over your display Ann, I think it was malicious”.
I said equally as loud “The only thing here that’s malicious is you”.
As I said I’m concerned.
I’m just a dumb engineer, but it seems to me if you could provide quality journalism
You don’t even need a human being to do it. http://broom.org/epic/ (Warning, Adobe Flash required. Because that site dates from 2004.)
If anything, they are more vociferous in their advocacy and more openly intolerant of those who prefer freedom.
As I said, we’ve known what the solution is since Pinochet. There’s an interesting theory over on the alt-right (“r/K selection”) that claims that due to evolved reproduction strategies, human society inevitably goes through boom and bust periods and that we’re heading for an Apocalypse. Whether one agrees with the underlying neuropsychology of it all, it’s hard to argue with the conclusion.
But I’m a bit concerned about it, what will it be like working with them? Taking orders from them? having them in political office? What will their generation of children be like?
I’ve had those same concerns for 20 years now.
As I said, we’ve known what the solution is since Pinochet.
What my end concerns were 20 years ago.
I’m skeptical of any All-Explaining Theory Of Everything, especially alt-right theories of sexual behavior; most of them (the theories, not the a/r’s) seem to come from mistaken conclusions mid-20th century researchers made about wolves. R/K selection doesn’t come from them, though; it’s a legitimate theory from legitimate biologists. It’s the idea that a species that spends little time on maternal care, such as some spiders, has to have a whole passel of younguns to keep the species going, since so many will die before reproducing. Whereas a species that spends lots of time on maternal care, such as elephants, can get away with as little as one baby every 2-3 years. From this, the a/r’s conclude that a welfare mom with a litter of kids by several different fathers is inferior to the rich folks who’ve been plotting to get the kid into Harvard from ten years before he was born, because r/K mumble mumble mumble. As you see, there are so many variables, plus the fact that Welfare Mom and Rich Bitch Mom are members of the same species, that r/K doesn’t apply. I can think of several arguments proving that Welfare Mom is inferior to Ritch Bitch Mom, and several arguments proving the reverse, but none of them have to do with r/K.
Whew. Let’s get back to butt-bleaching.
I meant “Let’s get back to laughing at butt-bleaching,” not “Let’s get back to bleaching our butts.”
I meant “Let’s get back to laughing at butt-bleaching,” not “Let’s get back to bleaching our butts.”
No do-overs. It’s there now, forever.
Riiiiight.
Daniel wrote:
“There’s an interesting theory over on the alt-right (“r/K selection”) that claims that due to evolved reproduction strategies, human society inevitably goes through boom and bust periods and that we’re heading for an Apocalypse.”
I mentioned this here once before. The good Theoprastus disagreed, but in human affairs, it looks as if the theory has decent predictive value.
You can find the book by Anonymous Conservative on Amazon or at his publisher Castalia House, though for marketing reasons their link may take you up the Amazon again.
Our host has the Amazon widget.
Also, validity of r/K as applied to humans aside, my first thought was, “I’ve seen this movie.”
I knew the Chez Deplorable crowd would get rowdy.
I guess “Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit!” will have to be revised to “Well, bleach my butt and call me a nitwit!”
Henceforth, you shall be known as Pogonip Of The Gleaming Crevices™.
I’m having T-shirts made and everything.
A certain bad Penny has rolled around again but rather than the kind of grim amusement and contempt she usually provokes in me this time I just feel thoroughly demoralised.
In many ways it bears all the hallmarks her prose is known for.
There is the same kind of overcooked sentimentality and melodrama she usually peddles in (not to mention the squirm-inducingly incoherent mixed metaphors – see her dismal attempt at trying to suggest embryonic rage with the ‘egg + claws’ formula)
Something broke, is breaking still. Not like a glass breaks or like a heart breaks, but like the shell of an egg breaks — inexorably, and from the inside. Something wet and angry is fighting its way out of the dark, and it has claws.
A great many abusers and their allies have begged us to step back and examine the context in which they may or may not have sexually intimidated or physically threatened or forcibly penetrated one or several female irrelevances who have suddenly decided to tell the world their experiences as if they mattered.
There are the same kind of imbecilic attempts at clairvoyance:
What happens when enough people stop believing that they ever wanted a world like this? What might happen to us as a society — hell, as a species — if enough of us begin to take consent seriously? What might happen if enough of us stood up together and refused to spend another second watching rich old white men do whatever the fuck they want to our bodies and call it freedom? Well, we might be about to find out. My guess is that it will be exhilarating, but first, it’ll be frightening as hell. Freedom always is.
And of course there is the same kind of spiteful menace and threat she tries to pepper her prose with:
“Freedom” is just another word for being under the thumb of a powerful white man — for now.
But what makes this different this time – for me at any rate – is that it has really hit home – really this time – that there must be people out there who are paying her to write this anxious teenage doggerel and still others who are reading this shit.
By whatever criteria you could possibly use you cannot in good conscience deny that what she writes is shit.
And it’s not even well-intentioned shit, but spiteful, vulgar, tasteless, overblown shit.
Yet no matter how shit it gets, she continues to get airtime, conference panel-time, speaking invitations, podcast time, column inches, and publishing deals as if it was anything but shit.
But it is shit. Utterly and completely shit.
Who on Earth could possibly read this shit and sincerely believe it has any worth of any kind to anyone?
In that same interview Daniel Ream mentions Dalrymple says of communist societies:
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.
What on Earth does this say about the probity of people who are not forced but instead willingly embrace that silence?
How can anyone read that shit? Or believe that she has anything of interest to say to anyone?
Adrian Mole’s angst-ridden teenage diary was at least funny.
And fictional.
Henceforth, you shall be known as Pogonip Of The Gleaming Crevices™.
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
there must be people out there who are paying her to write this anxious teenage doggerel and still others who are reading this shit.
Yes, it’s a boggling thought. And yet, as you say, she’s not short of boosters or groupies, here and overseas. Which suggests that, however delinquent and ruinous her advice may be, and however unhinged her tirades, what she churns out must speak to the psychology of the ‘progressive’ demographic. A large chunk of it, at least.
I realise that’s probably not a comfort, but there we are.
It’s about time someone recognized my fundamental nobility.
“Something wet and angry is fighting its way out of the dark…”
Oh, crap, another pickled “egg” escaped.
She gets paid per word.
Time magazine has nailed their colours to the mast.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/05/lets-kick-time-poty-list-around-bit-shall/
I didn’t know Time still existed; haven’t seen a copy in years, not even in a doctor’s office. In the checkout line magazine racks I see the “special editions” about various topics, but I thought the weekly magazine was long gone.
Christine Keeler of l’affaire Profumo has passed. As a coda to Nik’s link above, the movie Scandal about the incident was financed in the U.S. by the brothers Weinstein and Miramax. Evidently, Harvey was agitating for an “X” rating in the U.S. but ultimately settled for an “R.”